The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(10-05-2019 11:54 AM)calpersfatcat Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:26 AM)converrl Wrote:  These are all pipe dreams, but, as to your question...if the Bengals left, then PBS would need a tenant...there's your palace...no need to expand Nippert.

I'll also point out that it would shrink the tax base, so the $$ for such an expansion if the Bengals abandoned Cincy would be very hard to come by.

Oh...and Cincinnati would NEVER get another NFL franchise because of the small market.
This would make it even more unlikely that the Reds would stay long term because of shrinking revenue.

And if the Bearcats didn't get into the P5, your desires would effectively turn Cincinnati into Dayton.

But you could go see UC Baseball in Great American!

Hooray!!!

The Paul Brown Stadium experience sucks. If the Bearcats ever left Nippert, I would drop my season tickets and watch on TV. And I have had season tickets for years, including the Brian Kelly years, even though I lived in Southern California.

"Shrink the tax base" ??? Are you taking the position that 8 home games per year provide more economic opportunity than tearing it down and redeveloping 22 acres of riverfront space??? LOL !!!!!!!! Surely you are not making the argument that the payroll taxes of the Bengals organization and those businesses that support it, would be greater than 365 days of mixed use commercial/residential/retail employment/payroll taxes????

Are you also saying that having an NFL team somehow makes your city "relevant"??

Cincinnati loves The Reds.. People all over the country love the Reds.

So Cincinnati, minus pro sports, is Dayton?????????

You live in a very, very small world.

DL

Cincinnatians would live in a very very small world without pro sports. You forget that the fact that a city HAS pro sports attracts population, even if they don't attend games. There are also luxury taxes on visiting teams, and the potential for ancillary events, such as all-star games and political conventions...etc.

I find it absolutely laughable that the SAME people who leap up and down about how important revenue sports are to a University in terms of increasing enrollment and bringing in AD $$$ flippantly dismiss the SAME argument for a metropolitan area.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth....it's one or the other...what works for the goose also works for the gander.

Go back and re-assess.

(10-05-2019 01:27 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 11:54 AM)calpersfatcat Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:26 AM)converrl Wrote:  These are all pipe dreams, but, as to your question...if the Bengals left, then PBS would need a tenant...there's your palace...no need to expand Nippert.

I'll also point out that it would shrink the tax base, so the $$ for such an expansion if the Bengals abandoned Cincy would be very hard to come by.

Oh...and Cincinnati would NEVER get another NFL franchise because of the small market.
This would make it even more unlikely that the Reds would stay long term because of shrinking revenue.

And if the Bearcats didn't get into the P5, your desires would effectively turn Cincinnati into Dayton.

But you could go see UC Baseball in Great American!

Hooray!!!

The Paul Brown Stadium experience sucks. If the Bearcats ever left Nippert, I would drop my season tickets and watch on TV. And I have had season tickets for years, including the Brian Kelly years, even though I lived in Southern California.

"Shrink the tax base" ??? Are you taking the position that 8 home games per year provide more economic opportunity than tearing it down and redeveloping 22 acres of riverfront space??? LOL !!!!!!!! Surely you are not making the argument that the payroll taxes of the Bengals organization and those businesses that support it, would be greater than 365 days of mixed use commercial/residential/retail employment/payroll taxes????

Are you also saying that having an NFL team somehow makes your city "relevant"??

Cincinnati loves The Reds.. People all over the country love the Reds.

So Cincinnati, minus pro sports, is Dayton?????????

You live in a very, very small world.

DL

Cincinnatians would live in a very very small world without pro sports. You forget that the fact that a city HAS pro sports attracts population, even if they don't attend games. There are also luxury taxes on visiting teams, and the potential for ancillary events, such as all-star games and political conventions...etc.

I find it absolutely laughable that the SAME people who leap up and down about how important revenue sports are to a University in terms of increasing enrollment and bringing in AD $$$ flippantly dismiss the SAME argument for a metropolitan area.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth....it's one or the other...what works for the goose also works for the gander.

Go back and re-assess.

Because it really hurt Columbus before they got the NHL...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

(10-05-2019 01:59 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 01:27 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 11:54 AM)calpersfatcat Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:26 AM)converrl Wrote:  These are all pipe dreams, but, as to your question...if the Bengals left, then PBS would need a tenant...there's your palace...no need to expand Nippert.

I'll also point out that it would shrink the tax base, so the $$ for such an expansion if the Bengals abandoned Cincy would be very hard to come by.

Oh...and Cincinnati would NEVER get another NFL franchise because of the small market.
This would make it even more unlikely that the Reds would stay long term because of shrinking revenue.

And if the Bearcats didn't get into the P5, your desires would effectively turn Cincinnati into Dayton.

But you could go see UC Baseball in Great American!

Hooray!!!

The Paul Brown Stadium experience sucks. If the Bearcats ever left Nippert, I would drop my season tickets and watch on TV. And I have had season tickets for years, including the Brian Kelly years, even though I lived in Southern California.

"Shrink the tax base" ??? Are you taking the position that 8 home games per year provide more economic opportunity than tearing it down and redeveloping 22 acres of riverfront space??? LOL !!!!!!!! Surely you are not making the argument that the payroll taxes of the Bengals organization and those businesses that support it, would be greater than 365 days of mixed use commercial/residential/retail employment/payroll taxes????

Are you also saying that having an NFL team somehow makes your city "relevant"??

Cincinnati loves The Reds.. People all over the country love the Reds.

So Cincinnati, minus pro sports, is Dayton?????????

You live in a very, very small world.

DL

Cincinnatians would live in a very very small world without pro sports. You forget that the fact that a city HAS pro sports attracts population, even if they don't attend games. There are also luxury taxes on visiting teams, and the potential for ancillary events, such as all-star games and political conventions...etc.

I find it absolutely laughable that the SAME people who leap up and down about how important revenue sports are to a University in terms of increasing enrollment and bringing in AD $$$ flippantly dismiss the SAME argument for a metropolitan area.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth....it's one or the other...what works for the goose also works for the gander.

Go back and re-assess.

Because it really hurt Columbus before they got the NHL...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Way to cherry pick...Columbus is the capital of the state and thus runs on all the state taxes...duh.

Also, Columbus has O$U which is P5 and is basically a pro football team.

Note that UC ain't P5 OR O$U...and never will be.

Also, please explain why the population density and tax base in metro areas with pro sports is substantially higher than areas without it?

Because by your assertions this shouldn't be the case.

(10-05-2019 02:33 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 01:59 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 01:27 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 11:54 AM)calpersfatcat Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 10:26 AM)converrl Wrote:  These are all pipe dreams, but, as to your question...if the Bengals left, then PBS would need a tenant...there's your palace...no need to expand Nippert.

I'll also point out that it would shrink the tax base, so the $$ for such an expansion if the Bengals abandoned Cincy would be very hard to come by.

Oh...and Cincinnati would NEVER get another NFL franchise because of the small market.
This would make it even more unlikely that the Reds would stay long term because of shrinking revenue.

And if the Bearcats didn't get into the P5, your desires would effectively turn Cincinnati into Dayton.

But you could go see UC Baseball in Great American!

Hooray!!!

The Paul Brown Stadium experience sucks. If the Bearcats ever left Nippert, I would drop my season tickets and watch on TV. And I have had season tickets for years, including the Brian Kelly years, even though I lived in Southern California.

"Shrink the tax base" ??? Are you taking the position that 8 home games per year provide more economic opportunity than tearing it down and redeveloping 22 acres of riverfront space??? LOL !!!!!!!! Surely you are not making the argument that the payroll taxes of the Bengals organization and those businesses that support it, would be greater than 365 days of mixed use commercial/residential/retail employment/payroll taxes????

Are you also saying that having an NFL team somehow makes your city "relevant"??

Cincinnati loves The Reds.. People all over the country love the Reds.

So Cincinnati, minus pro sports, is Dayton?????????

You live in a very, very small world.

DL

Cincinnatians would live in a very very small world without pro sports. You forget that the fact that a city HAS pro sports attracts population, even if they don't attend games. There are also luxury taxes on visiting teams, and the potential for ancillary events, such as all-star games and political conventions...etc.

I find it absolutely laughable that the SAME people who leap up and down about how important revenue sports are to a University in terms of increasing enrollment and bringing in AD $$$ flippantly dismiss the SAME argument for a metropolitan area.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth....it's one or the other...what works for the goose also works for the gander.

Go back and re-assess.

Because it really hurt Columbus before they got the NHL...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Way to cherry pick...Columbus is the capital of the state and thus runs on all the state taxes...duh.

Also, Columbus has O$U which is P5 and is basically a pro football team.

Note that UC ain't P5 OR O$U...and never will be.

Also, please explain why the population density and tax base in metro areas with pro sports is substantially higher than areas without it?

Because by your assertions this shouldn't be the case.

Because they already were before the teams were placed in those cities. The NFL did not make Cincinnati's economy, just as it didn't make NYC's. Hell, the NFL has failed how many times in LA?


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

There will not be 40,121 people at the next Bengals game.

(10-05-2019 02:36 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 02:33 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 01:59 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 01:27 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 11:54 AM)calpersfatcat Wrote:  The Paul Brown Stadium experience sucks. If the Bearcats ever left Nippert, I would drop my season tickets and watch on TV. And I have had season tickets for years, including the Brian Kelly years, even though I lived in Southern California.

"Shrink the tax base" ??? Are you taking the position that 8 home games per year provide more economic opportunity than tearing it down and redeveloping 22 acres of riverfront space??? LOL !!!!!!!! Surely you are not making the argument that the payroll taxes of the Bengals organization and those businesses that support it, would be greater than 365 days of mixed use commercial/residential/retail employment/payroll taxes????

Are you also saying that having an NFL team somehow makes your city "relevant"??

Cincinnati loves The Reds.. People all over the country love the Reds.

So Cincinnati, minus pro sports, is Dayton?????????

You live in a very, very small world.

DL

Cincinnatians would live in a very very small world without pro sports. You forget that the fact that a city HAS pro sports attracts population, even if they don't attend games. There are also luxury taxes on visiting teams, and the potential for ancillary events, such as all-star games and political conventions...etc.

I find it absolutely laughable that the SAME people who leap up and down about how important revenue sports are to a University in terms of increasing enrollment and bringing in AD $$$ flippantly dismiss the SAME argument for a metropolitan area.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth....it's one or the other...what works for the goose also works for the gander.

Go back and re-assess.

Because it really hurt Columbus before they got the NHL...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Way to cherry pick...Columbus is the capital of the state and thus runs on all the state taxes...duh.

Also, Columbus has O$U which is P5 and is basically a pro football team.

Note that UC ain't P5 OR O$U...and never will be.

Also, please explain why the population density and tax base in metro areas with pro sports is substantially higher than areas without it?

Because by your assertions this shouldn't be the case.

Because they already were before the teams were placed in those cities. The NFL did not make Cincinnati's economy, just as it didn't make NYC's. Hell, the NFL has failed how many times in LA?


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Of course it didn't make those economies...but it helped expand it and retain interest in residing in those cities...otherwise those cities wouldn't keep trying to LURE those franchises......

Works both ways.

IMO parking is only a serious challenge when we have a week night game when night school is in session.

(10-05-2019 12:50 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Parking isn't that bad...sure everyone wants to show up in Clifton 20 minutes before game time and park right on campus next to Nippert but there is available parking.

Yesterday we parked in Library (Woodside Garage) easy in and out. Bought an event parking pass for the game.
We parked on East Campus in the Eden Park Garage for the UCLA game because I forgot to buy one until the day before the game. It was easy...took the Shuttle over to west campus. Took 7 minutes. It was ready waiting for passengers when we got out of the garage. After the game, even though the shuttle was waiting to pick up people for east campus, we decided to walk because it was a nice night. It's maybe a half mile.

To park at tOSU some people park 2 miles away and walk the way in...

Stanford: Sports stadiums do not generate significant local economic growth

Brookings study: "A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment."

Yahoo Finance: Economic benefits of NFL stadium boom are 'vastly overblown'

These studies are relevant for all NFL host cities, but keep in mind that the Bengals contract is often regarded as the "worst stadium financing deal ever." (Business Insider)

The sooner the Bengals leave, the better... for UC, for Cincinnati, and for all of Hamilton County.

(10-06-2019 12:23 PM)TubaCat Wrote:  Stanford: Sports stadiums do not generate significant local economic growth

Brookings study: "A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment."

Yahoo Finance: Economic benefits of NFL stadium boom are 'vastly overblown'

These studies are relevant for all NFL host cities, but keep in mind that the Bengals contract is often regarded as the "worst stadium financing deal ever." (Business Insider)

The sooner the Bengals leave, the better... for UC, for Cincinnati, and for all of Hamilton County.

Alright genius.......why doesn't the same logic hold for enlarging or replacing Nippert? Or any other college venue?

Here's a body blow the economic argument for college sports here:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10....lCode=jsea

and here:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1...0903241519

Also...it seems to me that your articles applied to facilities and not franchises......what's the data on the economic impact of having no franchise?

(10-06-2019 01:58 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(10-06-2019 12:23 PM)TubaCat Wrote:  Stanford: Sports stadiums do not generate significant local economic growth

Brookings study: "A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment."

Yahoo Finance: Economic benefits of NFL stadium boom are 'vastly overblown'

These studies are relevant for all NFL host cities, but keep in mind that the Bengals contract is often regarded as the "worst stadium financing deal ever." (Business Insider)

The sooner the Bengals leave, the better... for UC, for Cincinnati, and for all of Hamilton County.

Alright genius.......why doesn't the same logic hold for enlarging or replacing Nippert? Or any other college venue?

Here's a body blow the economic argument for college sports here:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10....lCode=jsea

and here:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1...0903241519

Also...it seems to me that your articles applied to facilities and not franchises......what's the data on the economic impact of having no franchise?

Q: Alright genius.......why doesn't the same logic hold for enlarging or replacing Nippert? Or any other college venue?
A: The Nippert renovation was privately fundraised, unlike Paul Brown Stadium which has stolen about a billion dollars from taxpayers... genius.

Q: Here's a body blow the economic argument for college sports here
A: You're absolutely correct, college sports is awful for universities. That's why most big name public universities have no athletic departments. (heavy sarcasm here)

Did you not notice a massive increase in the quantity and quality of high schools students applying to UC after we joined the Big East? Thousands of D1/D2/D3 schools invest in athletics because it has proven to be highly effective marketing.

This is where you'll try to point out that businesses like the Bengals "provide marketing for the city." Answer this with a straight face: who provides the better marketing... UC Football marketing UC, or the Bengals marketing Cincinnati? If I paid attention to the NFL and didn't live here, I would think Cincinnati is a joke for continuing to support a business like the Bengals. When they were decent, they were loaded with thugs and criminals. Their annual arrest count has decreased, but at the cost of being a farce on the field.

Look at Columbus... they are regarded as a major midwest city despite having a smaller metro population than Cincinnati and Cleveland, and their only major pro team is a failing soccer club. It's very possible to be a big time city without an NFL team, especially if UC FB continues winning on national TV wearing CINCINNATI.

If you don't like the Columbus comparison because of OSU or their status as the state capital, then look at Louisville. If you think people around the country think Cincinnati is a better city than Columbus or Louisville just because we have the Bengals, then... lol.

(10-06-2019 03:22 PM)TubaCat Wrote:  

(10-06-2019 01:58 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(10-06-2019 12:23 PM)TubaCat Wrote:  Stanford: Sports stadiums do not generate significant local economic growth

Brookings study: "A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment."

Yahoo Finance: Economic benefits of NFL stadium boom are 'vastly overblown'

These studies are relevant for all NFL host cities, but keep in mind that the Bengals contract is often regarded as the "worst stadium financing deal ever." (Business Insider)

The sooner the Bengals leave, the better... for UC, for Cincinnati, and for all of Hamilton County.

Alright genius.......why doesn't the same logic hold for enlarging or replacing Nippert? Or any other college venue?

Here's a body blow the economic argument for college sports here:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10....lCode=jsea

and here:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1...0903241519

Also...it seems to me that your articles applied to facilities and not franchises......what's the data on the economic impact of having no franchise?

Q: Alright genius.......why doesn't the same logic hold for enlarging or replacing Nippert? Or any other college venue?
A: The Nippert renovation was privately fundraised, unlike Paul Brown Stadium which has stolen about a billion dollars from taxpayers... genius.

Q: Here's a body blow the economic argument for college sports here
A: You're absolutely correct, college sports is awful for universities. That's why most big name public universities have no athletic departments. (heavy sarcasm here)

Did you not notice a massive increase in the quantity and quality of high schools students applying to UC after we joined the Big East? Thousands of D1/D2/D3 schools invest in athletics because it has proven to be highly effective marketing.

This is where you'll try to point out that businesses like the Bengals "provide marketing for the city." Answer this with a straight face: who provides the better marketing... UC Football marketing UC, or the Bengals marketing Cincinnati? If I paid attention to the NFL and didn't live here, I would think Cincinnati is a joke for continuing to support a business like the Bengals. When they were decent, they were loaded with thugs and criminals. Their annual arrest count has decreased, but at the cost of being a farce on the field.

Look at Columbus... they are regarded as a major midwest city despite having a smaller metro population than Cincinnati and Cleveland, and their only major pro team is a failing soccer club. It's very possible to be a big time city without an NFL team, especially if UC FB continues winning on national TV wearing CINCINNATI.

If you don't like the Columbus comparison because of OSU or their status as the state capital, then look at Louisville. If you think people around the country think Cincinnati is a better city than Columbus or Louisville just because we have the Bengals, then... lol.

The point of both of those articles is that they had minimal to no impact on the local economy....remember that the AD is subsidized at nearly 50% which comes from TUITION DOLLARS and STATE TAXES...that includes construction cost...also note that donor $$ depends on the businesses that the local donors run MAKING $$...that does not happen if the local economy SHRINKS.

I also love that you picked 2 examples of programs that are P5!!!!!!!! Apples and oranges anyone? UC ain't P5!! Ain't gonna ever be P5. Having a top tier P5 is just like having a pro franchise due to the distribution of $$ from the networks, merchandising, and gate!!

Give me an example of a NON-P5 city where there are no pro sports with a huge taxbase....

Ain't very many charlie.

Chew on it.

San Antonio, Las Vegas, Memphis, Orlando, Hartford, St. Louis and San Diego. No NFL and no P5.

There have been enough studies about professional sports and their impact on a city’s economy. The vast majority come to the conclusion that it is very minimal.
-Obvious exceptions are years when the team wins a championship
-Lebron’s impact on Cleveland

With that said, I still like and want to keep the Reds and Bengals.

(10-05-2019 02:43 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  There will not be 40,121 people at the next Bengals game.

Attendance was listed at 46,012. I feel like 40,000 is the floor for the Bengals.

(10-06-2019 08:38 PM)Banter Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 02:43 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  There will not be 40,121 people at the next Bengals game.

Attendance was listed at 46,012. I feel like 40,000 is the floor for the Bengals.

It's looking like this might be the year to find out. The UC/NCAA experience is so much better than whatever the Bengals are selling, in my opinion. Games like the Friday night UCF game haven't happened ever at Paul Brown Stadium. Hopefully the Cats can steal a few of the Bengals fans falling off the wagon. That's how they got this Miami grad.

I was at both games. UC v UCF was electric & an amazing experience. Bengals v cards was a total snore. Horrible game day experience. Likely the last ben-gal game I ever attend.

Back to the question at hand..."Would it be possible to ever get Nippert Stadium to 50k capacity?"

The short answer is "YES...BUT." This was heavily studied some years back (what, maybe 10 now?). YES...Nippert could be basically totally rebuilt to get capacity up to about 50k, BUT the amount of money and effort needed to do it would be prohibitive.

First, you'd basically be destroying Nippert. The things we love about the current stadium would cease to exist. The rebuilt stadium might sit on the land Nippert sits in, but it would--for all intents and purposes--be a different stadium.

Second, as several people have noted, it's not just--or even mainly--about the seats. Parking, traffic flow in and out of the stands, restrooms, etc...all of these basic needs need to be accommodated and accounted in any expansion. And, NO, this is not even about "the stadium experience"; it's fire codes, basic sanitation, etc... The whole "experience" thing would come much later.

Third, it would involve the whole campus. Dieterle is the easy target. But now you have "Varsity Village," the TUC, the Rec Center, and even 5/3 and Marge Schott all hemming Nippert in. You can't "just" rebuild and expand Nippert without impacting the whole of the Campus.

Fourth...well...$$$. Where are you going to get the likely $500+ Million to do what you want to do? (And I'm being conservative here.)

Fifth, there's a real question about the future of college FB. As it sits right now, Nippert is a somewhat flexible option. It suits us where we currently sit in the AAC; it isn't either too large nor too small. IF, God forbid, we find D-1 FBS football outside of the Power Conferences to be untenable in the long term, the current Nippert can be "downsized." If you ever needed to, Reed-Shank could be easily removed to give you a capable stadium for a...smaller...football existence (say at the FCS level). If you gamble on a 50,000 seat stadium and the "Power" dream never comes to pass, you find yourself in the situation UConn finds itself in: how in the world could they ever do FCS at Rentschler? They (UConn) will either "make" FBS independence work or they will have to abandon D1 football. (Or maybe they go the FBS-non scholarship route like Georgetown and play with wooden bleachers on some field on campus...) But until the future is more certain, it would be foolhardy to invest in a massive stadium...even if it could be done.

It may be possible to rebuild/replace the Reed-Shank Pavilion with a different set of stands with a greater seating capacity...but it's not going to ever get you 15k more. Maybe another 2-3k... I dunno.

I also don't think you're ever going to "fill in the notches" again. We have beat that one to death over the past few years. The gains in reconstructing them will never match the expense of doing it. Those seat were and never will be great revenue generators. Just getting a few thousand more people to count will not justify the construction expense...sorry.

Those notches seats were the worst in the stadium. The first 5 rows in the lower bowl suck. Other than that, Nippert is awesome. Sell out every game first then dream about upping the capacity by 10k.

I think we are fine where we are for now.

(10-06-2019 09:15 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Back to the question at hand..."Would it be possible to ever get Nippert Stadium to 50k capacity?"

The short answer is "YES...BUT." This was heavily studied some years back (what, maybe 10 now?). YES...Nippert could be basically totally rebuilt to get capacity up to about 50k, BUT the amount of money and effort needed to do it would be prohibitive.

First, you'd basically be destroying Nippert. The things we love about the current stadium would cease to exist. The rebuilt stadium might sit on the land Nippert sits in, but it would--for all intents and purposes--be a different stadium.

Second, as several people have noted, it's not just--or even mainly--about the seats. Parking, traffic flow in and out of the stands, restrooms, etc...all of these basic needs need to be accommodated and accounted in any expansion. And, NO, this is not even about "the stadium experience"; it's fire codes, basic sanitation, etc... The whole "experience" thing would come much later.

Third, it would involve the whole campus. Dieterle is the easy target. But now you have "Varsity Village," the TUC, the Rec Center, and even 5/3 and Marge Schott all hemming Nippert in. You can't "just" rebuild and expand Nippert without impacting the whole of the Campus.

Fourth...well...$$$. Where are you going to get the likely $500+ Million to do what you want to do? (And I'm being conservative here.)

Fifth, there's a real question about the future of college FB. As it sits right now, Nippert is a somewhat flexible option. It suits us where we currently sit in the AAC; it isn't either too large nor too small. IF, God forbid, we find D-1 FBS football outside of the Power Conferences to be untenable in the long term, the current Nippert can be "downsized." If you ever needed to, Reed-Shank could be easily removed to give you a capable stadium for a...smaller...football existence (say at the FCS level). If you gamble on a 50,000 seat stadium and the "Power" dream never comes to pass, you find yourself in the situation UConn finds itself in: how in the world could they ever do FCS at Rentschler? They (UConn) will either "make" FBS independence work or they will have to abandon D1 football. (Or maybe they go the FBS-non scholarship route like Georgetown and play with wooden bleachers on some field on campus...) But until the future is more certain, it would be foolhardy to invest in a massive stadium...even if it could be done.

It may be possible to rebuild/replace the Reed-Shank Pavilion with a different set of stands with a greater seating capacity...but it's not going to ever get you 15k more. Maybe another 2-3k... I dunno.

I also don't think you're ever going to "fill in the notches" again. We have beat that one to death over the past few years. The gains in reconstructing them will never match the expense of doing it. Those seat were and never will be great revenue generators. Just getting a few thousand more people to count will not justify the construction expense...sorry.

I think the most likely scenario would be expanding as a conditional invitation to a P5 conference. In that sense, the money starts making a lot more sense. Until then, or until something unforeseen (example FB agreement giving Playoff birth to AAC or G5), I agree it probably doesn’t make too much sense.

That said, I don’t think Cincinnati has given up on getting into the big leagues, so it’s something that has to be considered so we know our options when the time comes.

(10-06-2019 09:15 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Back to the question at hand..."Would it be possible to ever get Nippert Stadium to 50k capacity?"

The short answer is "YES...BUT." This was heavily studied some years back (what, maybe 10 now?). YES...Nippert could be basically totally rebuilt to get capacity up to about 50k, BUT the amount of money and effort needed to do it would be prohibitive.

First, you'd basically be destroying Nippert. The things we love about the current stadium would cease to exist. The rebuilt stadium might sit on the land Nippert sits in, but it would--for all intents and purposes--be a different stadium.

Second, as several people have noted, it's not just--or even mainly--about the seats. Parking, traffic flow in and out of the stands, restrooms, etc...all of these basic needs need to be accommodated and accounted in any expansion. And, NO, this is not even about "the stadium experience"; it's fire codes, basic sanitation, etc... The whole "experience" thing would come much later.

Third, it would involve the whole campus. Dieterle is the easy target. But now you have "Varsity Village," the TUC, the Rec Center, and even 5/3 and Marge Schott all hemming Nippert in. You can't "just" rebuild and expand Nippert without impacting the whole of the Campus.

Fourth...well...$$$. Where are you going to get the likely $500+ Million to do what you want to do? (And I'm being conservative here.)

Fifth, there's a real question about the future of college FB. As it sits right now, Nippert is a somewhat flexible option. It suits us where we currently sit in the AAC; it isn't either too large nor too small. IF, God forbid, we find D-1 FBS football outside of the Power Conferences to be untenable in the long term, the current Nippert can be "downsized." If you ever needed to, Reed-Shank could be easily removed to give you a capable stadium for a...smaller...football existence (say at the FCS level). If you gamble on a 50,000 seat stadium and the "Power" dream never comes to pass, you find yourself in the situation UConn finds itself in: how in the world could they ever do FCS at Rentschler? They (UConn) will either "make" FBS independence work or they will have to abandon D1 football. (Or maybe they go the FBS-non scholarship route like Georgetown and play with wooden bleachers on some field on campus...) But until the future is more certain, it would be foolhardy to invest in a massive stadium...even if it could be done.

It may be possible to rebuild/replace the Reed-Shank Pavilion with a different set of stands with a greater seating capacity...but it's not going to ever get you 15k more. Maybe another 2-3k... I dunno.

I also don't think you're ever going to "fill in the notches" again. We have beat that one to death over the past few years. The gains in reconstructing them will never match the expense of doing it. Those seat were and never will be great revenue generators. Just getting a few thousand more people to count will not justify the construction expense...sorry.

There's no expense to the university to fill in the notches or replace the front rows taken out. FC Cincy agreed to replace whatever seating was taken out if the university wanted them to replace the seats.